Calling all Zipperheads

[Franko]

OK troops. Here it is. The question that has to be asked. I know alot of you guys out there, personally. So I‘m going to pick your brains.

What would be a great replacement for our ageing Leo‘s?

I don‘t want to hear ANYTHING about the MGS crap either(Stryker). Also think of the amount that the present government wants to spend per vehicle(6-9 million per).

Target STOP!

:tank:

Regards

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would go with the Leopard 2s that the Germans are trying to get rid of
1) Despite being used they still have a lot of life left in them
2) buying new/used we could probably get a lot of spare parts
3) We could also think on converting some to ARVs, AVLBs etc.
4) With the Leo C2 how about givng a troop to each brigade group that has an armoured unit.

 

[Infanteer]

Can an infantry guy with a genuine concern for our Armoured Corps weigh in?

Whould an Abrams be a good choice for mere logistical purposes? Spare parts, training simulators, etc.

My only concern would be the fact that those turbines are fuel suckers...might be hard on us.

And, we know the thing is combat proven.

 

[Franko]

Well infanteer...the only thing is we‘d have to depend on Yanks for support for spare parts...and we all know how politicians love that Seriously though good point on the battle proven effectivness.

Ex Dragoon...good points all, but hen the conversion shouldn‘t be all that hard. Similar AFVs, layout, etc

Regards

 

[Garry]

M1. Unit cost (iirc) is about 1 mil per, and it;s nads down the best tank in thenworld. They‘ve solved most of the fuel problems, and I guarentee that the US would LOVE to have us buy a few hundred...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would be happy with 66 M1s instead of 66 Strykers....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Would you guys even remember tracked......[ooops delete -not send]....

 

[Franko]

OK...guess he looked at our write ups

Bruce...if you got something to contribute, by all means please do!

Regards

 

[Enzo]

I‘m a layman when it comes to armour, but in regards to the M1 I have a concern. The issue of the depleted uranium ammunition and armour is becoming one of contention. Their is not enough information about the long term safety of such systems to their crews. There is more evidence coming to light that this may be a detriment. Short term ability v. long term health. Thoughts?

In addition, I doubt that the government will authorize the purchase of anything over 100 vehicles of any class. The history of the subject shows that they are systematically downgrading the number and ability of any such vehicles.

As for the tracked platform of choice. The Israeli Merkava has always interested me. The Israeli‘s have a long history of tank warfare and design. The engine in the front, sloping armour, nice big gun, etc... Thoughts?

As for logistics, I concur with Dragoon re: L2‘s. If the German‘s want to part with them, we should seriously consider them as an option.

Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

I‘m a layman when it comes to armour, but in regards to the M1 I have a concern. The issue of the depleted uranium ammunition and armour is becoming one of contention. Their is not enough information about the long term safety of such systems to their crews. There is more evidence coming to light that this may be a detriment. Short term ability v. long term health. Thoughts?

Totally agree. We discussed the scientific aspects of DU in a class (yipe - I didn‘t just say that, did I). I would be curious to know how we the DU armour stands up before turning into radioactive dust. Then again, that stuff is no worse than inhaling the fumes from all the platics and synthetics **** is made from today...

In addition, I doubt that the government will authorize the purchase of anything over 100 vehicles of any class. The history of the subject shows that they are systematically downgrading the number and ability of any such vehicles.

True, but we are playing a fantasy sports pool here.

As for the tracked platform of choice. The Israeli Merkava has always interested me. The Israeli‘s have a long history of tank warfare and design. The engine in the front, sloping armour, nice big gun, etc... Thoughts?

The Merkava IV can hold an infantry section in the back, which I thought was neat. I think there was issues with it being designed specifically for a war in the Middle East, ie width, etc (which is perfect for the Israelis). Will it neccessarily meet our wider prerequisites?

As for logistics, I concur with Dragoon re: L2‘s. If the German‘s want to part with them, we should seriously consider them as an option.

One thing I like about the L2‘s is the chassis. If we get those, maybe we can also snag a few squadrons of Gepards and reequip our Sappers.
Check their site out, they seem to know what they are doing
http://www.kmweg.de/english/index.html

Cheers.

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by Enzo:
[qb] I‘m a layman when it comes to armour, but in regards to the M1 I have a concern. The issue of the depleted uranium ammunition and armour is becoming one of contention. Cheers. [/qb]

Personally I would favour the Abrams. Half of the **** tank is made in Canada to begin with. Plus the U.S. would ( and has in the past) offered us rock bottom pricing on the tanks and the parts. We wouldn‘t be seperated by an ocean from our spares and could aquire most replacement parts in Canada.

With regard to the armour its self...Who knows. But I don‘t really think there is that much to worry about.

Just another thought. If we bought the Abrams, they might give us a deal on some other stuff ( like heavy lift maybe?!)

Cheers Slim

 

[Enzo]

Slim - Look up depleted uranium. It is something to be concerned about in regards to these systems, especially if you are crewing the vehicle. I personally do not intend to ever be a casualty of necessity. Especially when those who make such decisions are not serving within those weapon systems.

http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/metal_leftbooks.htm

http://www.cadu.org.uk/

More long term research is required. So maybe the Abrams would be a good package for the CF, but without the Uranium armour and munitions for now.

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by Enzo:
[qb] Slim - Look up depleted uranium. It is something to be concerned about [/qb]

Enzo
O.K...getting hit by a DU round is not healthy...I agree completely. Using DU rounds is soething that should be discussed and thoroughly investigated. I‘ll hand you that.

As for the armour on the tank it‘s self. You would think that crews who were using the Abrams and Bradly before the Gulf war ( in training perhaps) would sho signs of radiation poisoning if there was anything wrong with the actual armour on the tank.

Just a thought. By the way, I believe we use DU rounds as well...

Slim

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Infanteer, by Sappers did you mean "bird gunners"? I am asking because the Gepard is an air defence weapon and Sappers are what we call engineers.. The ADATS is quite a capable AA system and so is our skyguard and 35mm, which is the same gun system that is in the Gepard.

Bzz

 

[Franko]

On the point of DU being used for armour...never been used in combat. They use Chobbam armour...mixture of ceramics and plastics layered with differing types of steel.

As for DU ammo...highly effective. You have more to worry about in regards to the cordite and semi combustable caseings used in the M1. The gasses produced are carcenogenic.

As for the Merk carring an entire section in the back(8 pers) I‘ll have to look it up. I seem to recall it only carring 3 in the rear. On a differing point, it also supply cool water to everyone in the tank through tubes.

Infanteer...Bzzz is right.

Slim...we don‘t have DU rounds in stock...doesn‘t mean we won‘t get them if we require them, but I‘m not holding my breath. We are slowly getting away from prepping for war to prepping for enforcing peace. Personnaly I think they go hand in hand. Any thoughts?

Regards

 

[Garry]

We had (iirc) one ammo outload in Germany, the rest was via the US- and that meant apfsdsdu. I figured that was alright by me- heck of a better round.

No idea what we have anymore...though I strongly support the use of DU rounds- they‘re safe until they impact and small amounts vapourize- then the problems start...of course, the folks who got hit needn‘t worry about the vapour- hence the reason I support the round.

 

[Franko]

It is a better round. The problem laid with "Gulf War syndrom" that ensued post war. Everything from that war was put down as partly to blame, especially by the media.

We only use APFSDST-T for training.
APFSDS-T for war.(service Sabot)

Too bad we don‘t train with the real stuff, harder to see the FOS.

Regards

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer, by Sappers did you mean "bird gunners"? I am asking because the Gepard is an air defence weapon and Sappers are what we call engineers.. The ADATS is quite a capable AA system and so is our skyguard and 35mm, which is the same gun system that is in the Gepard

Woops, I guess the sentence does look a little unclear. It should of said AND reequip our sappers with the variety of engineering equipment built upon the Leo2 chassis; the advantage of parts compatibility among the Armoured Corps, the Mud Gunners, the Bird Gunners, and the Engineers would be nice...imagine building an IFV on that chassis too?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The Israeli‘s do that with a Centurion chassis don‘t they IIRC?

 

[Infanteer]

I know they have done it with captured T54/55‘s.

It was featured in an issue of the Land Force Doctrine and Training Bulletin.